Is the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 Cessationist?

[Eoghan]

You can find a comparison here https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

My question arises (again) from a Bible study on Genesis 40 last night. I take the view that special revelation has ceased and that everything we need is within the canon of scripture. (2 Timothy 3:15-17, Hebrews 2:3-4, " Timothy 4:20)

I was contradicted by an elder and minister who were of the opinion that God still speaks in dreams and prophesies (Acts 2:17)

As a former charismatic I am VERY aware of the door that is being opened. Important decisions about business and marriage partners should not be the subject of inward impressions, dreams, visions and prophecies. This is to open the door to mysticism. It is in my opinion much more in keeping with the mysticism of Roman Catholicism where visions and dreams are commonly currency. I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted! My detractors feel that I am limiting God and denying that God can work any way He wants to.

[My post on personal visits by Jesus (https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-torn-veil-gulshan-esther.105152/#post-1270711) questions whether He still does 'house calls']

 

[RamistThomist]

For practical purposes it is, but men like Cameron and Cargill prophecied with accuracy.

Whether it resembles Catholicism or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is logically true or false.

 

[Eoghan]

The Roman Catholic Church accept the continuation of miracles and has panels set up to approve them. Were the reformed churches to accept the continuation of miracles I think it would require some investigative body. At present we rely on investigative reporters or the Great Randi who did a fantastic job of exposing charismatic healers and their "words of knowledge".

I recall John MacArthur telling that one of his colleagues was prophesied to have an international ministry by a charismatic "prophet". At his grave some six months later John confronted him and was told that the prophesy was true, and that was why Satan took his life. Subjective experience is a guiding factor for charismatics. I recall Henry Krabbendam (?) telling the story of a couple that came to be married and finding out that both were divorced and had divorced as "the guilty party" to be together. They pressed on him that God meant for them to be together and that He should pray about it. He duly did and then caught himself thinking, "What am I doing, God has spoken in His word and here I am praying against His revealed will!" He refused to marry the adulterers (or pray about it!)

This incidentally is how Mormons start with their introduction to Joseph Smith. You are invited to pray about it and see if there is an inner witness to the truth of the book of Mormon.

Did the Children's Crusade of 1212 AD not have it's origins in supposed "special revelation"?

Today we are familiar with the idea of vaccines which allow the body to fight off infections. They are given in advance of exposure to the infection and provide immunity. It is my contention that part of the job of a minister and the elders is to immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy. It should be proactive and, as was the practice of Paul, involve "reasoning from scripture" rather than experience.

In reviewing the Baptist Confession I discovered it was revised in 1651 to counter the Quaker "inner light" method of interpreting scripture - more of which later.

 

[RamistThomist]

The Roman Catholic Church accept the continuation of miracles and has panels set up to approve them. Were the reformed churches to accept the continuation of miracles I think it would require some investigative body. At present we rely on investigative reporters or the Great Randi who did a fantastic job of exposing charismatic healers and their "words of knowledge".

I recall John MacArthur telling that one of his colleagues was prophesied to have an international ministry by a charismatic "prophet". At his grave some six months later John confronted him and was told that the prophesy was true, and that was why Satan took his life. Subjective experience is a guiding factor for charismatics. I recall Henry Krabbendam (?) telling the story of a couple that came to be married and finding out that both were divorced and had divorced as "the guilty party" to be together. They pressed on him that God meant for them to be together and that He should pray about it. He duly did and then caught himself thinking, "What am I doing, God has spoken in His word and here I am praying against His revealed will!" He refused to marry the adulterers (or pray about it!)

This incidentally is how Mormons start with their introduction to Joseph Smith. You are invited to pray about it and see if there is an inner witness to the truth of the book of Mormon.

Did the Children's Crusade of 1212 AD not have it's origins in supposed "special revelation"?

Today we are familiar with the idea of vaccines which allow the body to fight off infections. They are given in advance of exposure to the infection and provide immunity. It is my contention that part of the job of a minister and the elders is to immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy. It should be proactive and, as was the practice of Paul, involve "reasoning from scripture" rather than experience.

In reviewing the Baptist Confession I discovered it was revised in 1651 to counter the Quaker "inner light" method of interpreting scripture - more of which later.

That is a logical fallacy. You are pointing out moral failures (which no one denies) and not dealing with the issue. By the same logic, cessationism is false because Westboro Baptist Church exists.

In logic you cannot disprove an argument simply by noting how people behaved. At best, all you can really say is that there are dangers involved in continuationism. Absolutely. I myself have seen quite a bit. Logically, though, that is irrevelant.

And if we really want to play by that game, I have seen tyranny, legalism and literal suicide in cessationist churches. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

 

[earl40]

That is a logical fallacy. You are pointing out moral failures (which no one denies) and not dealing with the issue. By the same logic, cessationism is false because Westboro Baptist Church exists.

In logic you cannot disprove an argument simply by noting how people behaved. At best, all you can really say is that there are dangers involved in continuationism. Absolutely. I myself have seen quite a bit. Logically, though, that is irrevelant.

And if we really want to play by that game, I have seen tyranny, legalism and literal suicide in cessationist churches. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

I have a feeling you are wrong here.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Needs the extraordinary providence option which would encompass the sort of astute prophesying of the Reformation era. I'm not inclined to believe the later Covenanter stuff; the embellished stories of the Westminster assembly prove Scots were not beyond making up fantastical stories; but that is okay according to this view. I just did the final proof read of Durham's treatment of cessation of extraordinary gifts (on Prophecy) which will be in vol. 2 of the new edition of his commentary on Revelation which hopefully gets turned in to RHB on Monday March 1. It takes a rather strict cessationalist view why attempting to explain, carve out the exception of what a later writer placed as extraordinary providences.
Been talking about this on and off for a while on the board. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-way-god-worked-in-the-ot.96163/#post-1175711

 

[Taylor]

I think this question is assuming much that needs to be dealt with first. Without giving away my own position on these matters, here are some of the questions I am asking as I read the OP:

1) What is "cessationism"? It seems to me there are several varieties and flavors. Some would shun the idea of the Spirit even guiding the believer in any tangible way. Others would affirm the canon's closure, yet still argue for prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. (e.g., Grudem). Still others believe the canon is not closed and the Spirit is still inspiring (this, obviously, is heretical, but people do believe it).

2) How do we deal with the Confession's language when it speaks of "those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people"? What exactly is this talking about?

3) Having dealt with #1 and #2, what parameters are we to erect theologically to evaluate what is 1) within and without the bounds of "cessationism" and 2) within and without the bounds of the Confession's language? And how do we deal with the results?

As J. C. Ryle said (one of my favorite quotes):

It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.​

​

—John Charles Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 1.​

 

[RamistThomist]

I have a feeling you are wrong here.

Enter famous Ben Shapiro quote

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not defending continuationism per se. I am just pointing out fallacious arguments. You don't want to try to debate someone like Michael Brown using the above arguments.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I wonder how many of these prophecies are like the most famous example, that Hus predicted the Reformation. Still striking, but not as overt as the later embellishment. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/goose/

 

[RamistThomist]

I wonder how many of these prophecies are like the most famous example, that Hus predicted the Reformation. Still striking, but not as overt as the later embellishment. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/goose/

Good point. Strictly speaking, in light of my earlier comment, even if Cameron was reported to prophecy, that doesn't logically prove continuationism any more than Roman Catholic silliness disproves it.

 

[Eoghan]

I seem to recall Dr R. C. Sproul making the point that the Roman Catholic Church in it's dispute with Luther claimed it had miracles attesting to it's authority. Luther countered that the Reformation had miracles too, they were just confined to the New Testament era!

To speculate about predictions that men (or women) have made is to let the camel's nose in the tent. To concede that prophecy and dreams provide special revelation today is to welcome the camel into the tent!

Remember I come out of a charismatic background, people move house, change jobs or cease medication on the basis of "special revelation". Charismatics kill people when they stop medications or refuse to visit hospitals.

 

[RamistThomist]

I seem to recall Dr R. C. Sproul making the point that the Roman Catholic Church in it's dispute with Luther claimed it had miracles attesting to it's authority. Luther countered that the Reformation had miracles too, they were just confined to the New Testament era!

To speculate about predictions that men (or women) have made is to let the camel's nose in the tent. To concede that prophecy and dreams provide special revelation today is to welcome the camel into the tent!

This is a logical fallacy.

Charismatics kill people when they stop medications or refuse to visit hospitals.

Except the leading charismatic debater, Michael Brown, repudiates that position. Even James White in his debates with Brown is fair on that point.

 

[Taylor]

If we’re going to discuss this topic fairly, I think it is best that we use each position’s best defenders. I don’t know who @BayouHuguenot has in mind, but I think of men like Grudem and Poythress for the continuationist side, and men like Gaffin for the cessationist side. Jacob is absolutely right in his calling foul on what has been said. The merits or demerits of any position cannot be based on the actions or character of its adherents. This is textbook ad hominem. We can discuss abuses, for sure, but what shows a position to be right or wrong is Scripture alone.

 

[RamistThomist]

If we’re going to discuss this topic fairly, I think it is best that we use each position’s best defenders. I don’t know who @BayouHuguenot has in mind, but I think of men like Grudem and Poythress for the continuationist side, and men like Gaffin for the cessationist side. Jacob is absolutely right in his calling foul on what has been said. The merits or demerits of any position cannot be based on the actions or character of its adherents. This is textbook ad hominem. We can discuss abuses, for sure, but what shows a position to be right or wrong is Scripture alone.

Michael L. Brown is the best on the continuationist side. He is actually one of the best debaters in the Christian world today.

 

[ZackF]

Taylor has a good point. I try to find a definition in all disputes. Is cessationism a closing of the canon or what?

 

[Eyedoc84]

I think this question is assuming much that needs to be dealt with first. Without giving away my own position on these matters, here are some of the questions I am asking as I read the OP:

1) What is "cessationism"? It seems to me there are several varieties and flavors. Some would shun the idea of the Spirit even guiding the believer in any tangible way. Others would affirm the canon's closure, yet still argue for prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. (e.g., Grudem). Still others believe the canon is not closed and the Spirit is still inspiring (this, obviously, is heretical, but people do believe it).

2) How do we deal with the Confession's language when it speaks of "those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people"? What exactly is this talking about?

3) Having dealt with #1 and #2, what parameters are we to erect theologically to evaluate what is 1) within and without the bounds of "cessationism" and 2) within and without the bounds of the Confession's language? And how do we deal with the results?

As J. C. Ryle said (one of my favorite quotes):

It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.​

​

—John Charles Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 1.​

As to #2, the Confession already told us what the former ways were by telling us that “afterwards....to commit the same wholly unto writing.” Formerly, there were divers manners.

 

[earl40]

I seem to recall Dr R. C. Sproul making the point that the Roman Catholic Church in it's dispute with Luther claimed it had miracles attesting to it's authority. Luther countered that the Reformation had miracles too, they were just confined to the New Testament era!

To speculate about predictions that men (or women) have made is to let the camel's nose in the tent. To concede that prophecy and dreams provide special revelation today is to welcome the camel into the tent!

Remember I come out of a charismatic background, people move house, change jobs or cease medication on the basis of "special revelation". Charismatics kill people when they stop medications or refuse to visit hospitals.

It is no fallacy because no one has seen miracles after the closing of the cannon. Well that is what I believe. Every time I ask someone to state a miracle they have seen it is simply a misclassification of a true sign and wonder.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is no fallacy because no one has seen miracles after the closing of the cannon. Well that is what I believe. Every time I ask someone to state a miracle they have seen it is simply a misclassification of a true sign and wonder.

I am not sure how the fallacy or not connects with what we are saying. If he is giving logical reasons why x is wrong (which with Scripture is the only thing that matters), and he then responds with scare stories, that is certainly a logical fallacy.

Here is a scare story: a cessationist pastor friend of mine committed suicide. Cessationism is bad.

As to your second sentence, what my net don't catch isn't fish. Any time someone brings up counter evidence, you respond with "That doesn't count."

 

[RamistThomist]

Taylor has a good point. I try to find a definition in all disputes. Is cessationism a closing of the canon or what?

The difficulty there is finding where Scripture talks of the moment of the closing of the canon. Even worse, when Scripture uses revelation, more often than not it means an unveiling. Apocalupto almost never means "complete set of NT data which is now closed."

But let's assume that's what it does mean. There really isn't a logical connection between "the canon is closed" to "signs and wonders ceased today." I think an argument can be made, and Gaffin has done the best job, but by itself that isn't a good argument.

Or another case: Since the canon is closed, we can't cast out demons today. That's a bald non-sequitur.

Let's make it even worse: RC Sproul once called the canon a fallible collection of infallible documents. If it is a fallible collection, on what grounds can we say it is infallibly closed?

 

[Eoghan]

I don't believe I stated that all charismatics at all times have always killed people. To assert what I have not is to create a straw man. What I am saying is that this is not how many angels can dance on the end of a pin! Belief in the continuation of "signs and wonders" has real world consequences. It can embolden people to act on feelings, or what others have said/prophesied.

My concern is to warn the flock of wolves and false shepherds in advance. Whilst most people agree with that in the abstract, it does seem to be something we are slow to do. Leaving aside specific individuals, I am struggling to find anyone mentioning the basic doctrines that form the bulwark against false teachers!

When false teachers arise I don't think we should wait a decade to call them out. Sure Todd Bentley appears false now but isn't that hindsight?

I think this question is assuming much that needs to be dealt with first. Without giving away my own position on these matters, here are some of the questions I am asking as I read the OP:

1) What is "cessationism"? It seems to me there are several varieties and flavors. Some would shun the idea of the Spirit even guiding the believer in any tangible way. Others would affirm the canon's closure, yet still argue for prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. (e.g., Grudem). Still others believe the canon is not closed and the Spirit is still inspiring (this, obviously, is heretical, but people do believe it).

2) How do we deal with the Confession's language when it speaks of "those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people"? What exactly is this talking about?

3) Having dealt with #1 and #2, what parameters are we to erect theologically to evaluate what is 1) within and without the bounds of "cessationism" and 2) within and without the bounds of the Confession's language? And how do we deal with the results?

As J. C. Ryle said (one of my favorite quotes):

It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.​

​

—John Charles Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 1.​

I think it was David Hume who said something to the effect that the greatest obstacle to understanding was the definition of terms.

 

[Eyedoc84]

When false teachers arise I don't think we should wait a decade to call them out. Sure Todd Bentley appears false now but isn't that hindsight?

And why didn’t any of the “prophets” know about that snake?

 

[earl40]

Any time someone brings up counter evidence, you respond with "That doesn't count."

So give me an example that you thinks counts?

 

[Tom Hart]

It is not a fallacy to say that, once the door is opened to new revelation, there are going to be issues sorting it all out.

 

[RamistThomist]

So give me an example that you thinks counts?

No. I have done that so many times on this board. I'm not going over that again. In any case, Keener's two volumes on miracles is the academic standard.

 

[Taylor]

It is not a fallacy to say that, once the door is opened to new revelation, there are going to be issues sorting it all out.

Yes, but that's not what's been said. What's been said is that there have been bad people who subscribe to Belief A, and that therefore Belief A is wrong. That is a fallacy.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is not a fallacy to say that, once the door is opened to new revelation, there are going to be issues sorting it all out.

In terms of whether a position is logically true or false, it is a fallacy. However, if he changes the tactic and says that it can be dangerous for a spiritual life, that is certainly a legitimate charge, and one I have a small degree of sympathy with.

 

[RamistThomist]

My concern is to warn the flock of wolves and false shepherds in advance.

That is certainly legitimate, but the way you framed the issue was that anyone who holds to continued revelation is in that camp. If person A holds to prophecy, is he a false shepherd and wolf. Would you call Michael L. Brown, a charismatic who is probably the leading Christian authority and debater worldwide on Judaism, a man who has written numerous, numerous volumes against charismatic excess, a wolf and false shepherd? If so, then you were imputing this to those views. If not, then I am glad to see you making distinctions.

 

[RamistThomist]

And why didn’t any of the “prophets” know about that snake?

You can call in or write in to Michael Brown's program and ask him. I don't know the answer to the question, largely because I wasn't there then and normally avoid denominational/institutional politics.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think it was David Hume who said something to the effect that the greatest obstacle to understanding was the definition of terms.

Which is why I suggested looking at how the NT uses apocalupto. It almost never (in fact, I am sure it never does) speaks of revelation as a closed deposit of what can only be called Bible data.

And then, as I noted above, there is the thorny problem--one EO apologists are keen to point out--is that what we call the canon is, as RC Sproul said, a fallible list of infallible books.